I believe in religious freedom, those Christian vendors have the right not to participate in religious rituals they view as profane.

They weren't asked to participate, they were employed to provide a service from their public businesses.

Brian_G wrote:

Same sex marriage is bad because it's taboo.

If things were deemed "bad" because they were taboo we still wouldn't allow women to vote, inter-racial marriages, handicapped people in the workplace, fertility assistance, women in the workplace, or proper health care.

Taboo is only an argument for the stupid. That would be you Brian_G_Village_Idiot.

<quoted text>Thirteen states and counting prove you wrong, small Peter. And the Supreme Court of California ruled gays had the fundamental right of marriage in that state before voters sought to permanently infringe that right via Prop 8.

Did they actually use those words?

It's inherent in the liberty to choose one's mate with which to exercise their fundamental right of marriage.From Bowers v. Texas:“Our prior cases make two propositions abundantly clear. First, the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice; neither history nor tradition could save a law prohibiting miscegenation from constitutional attack. Second, individual decisions by married persons, concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship, even when not intended to produce offspring, are a form of “liberty” protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Moreover, this protection extends to intimate choices by unmarried as well as married persons.”

Gee, that could allow a number of options.

It only seems different to stupid people like you since you're unable to distinguish between the actual legal accomplishment of marriage and the various restrictions placed on exercising that right.

"The legal accomplishment of marriage"? Ohhhhhh........joining one man and one woman together as legally recognized husband and wife.

On the contrary, the laws were equally applied within the state in which they were enacted. It's irrelevant whether the laws varied between states or whether all states even had anti-miscegenation laws. The race restriction served no compelling government interest and was thus unconstitutional.

Exactly how we're they applied "equally"? How does one apply a law equally to a person of mixed ethnicity/race?

Gays don't have to conform to YOUR unconstitutional expectations to avoid offending the delicate sensibilities of bigoted *sswipes like you.

It must drive you crazy knowing there are self described gay men, and lesbians, who actually choose to marry someone of the opposite sex, and even engage in coitus! And what can coitus result in? Conception!

I don't have to explain them. How they self identify doesn't refute the scientific consensus that sexual orientation is innate.

If ya can't, just say so.

Nor does it refute the fact sexual orientation meets the criteria SCOTUS has set for determining suspect classes for equal protection cases. Unfortunately, SCOTUS has always bent over backwards to use rational basis scrutiny to rule in favor of gays and thus avoid the need to declare sexual orientation a suspect class. Probably because they know if they do, they'd be forced to declare all state laws withholding legal recognition of same sex marriages unconstitutional.

Is it possible, that at least for some, "innate sexual orientation", is not set in stone, not black or white?

<quoted text>As are yours Marramie.<quoted text>Uhhhhh......huh.....and you're just sitiing up on the mountain top dispensing pearls of wisdom to the "ignorant" masses. It must be such a burden.

It is a burden, thanks for acknowledging that. If you ignorant haters would just crack a book every once in a while you would lessen the burden and not be such an embarrassment to the United States. Really, when is the last time read anything other than the TV?

"As discussed below, upon review of the numerous California decisions that have examined the underlying bases and significance of the constitutional right to marry (and that illuminate why this right has been recognized as one of the basic, inalienable civil rights guaranteed to an individual by the California Constitution), we conclude that, under this state's Constitution, the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual's liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process. These core substantive rights include, most fundamentally, the opportunity of an individual to establish—with the person with whom the individual has chosen to share his or her life—an officially recognized and protected family possessing mutual rights and responsibilities and entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage. As past cases establish, the substantive right of two adults who share a loving relationship to join together to establish an officially recognized family of their own—and, if the couple chooses, to raise children within that family—constitutes a vitally important attribute of the fundamental interest in liberty and personal autonomy that the California Constitution secures to all persons for the benefit of both the individual and society.

Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual's sexual orientation—like a person's race or gender—does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights. We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples."

Pietro Armando wrote:

Gee, that could allow a number of options.

Possibly.

Pietro Armando wrote:

"The legal accomplishment of marriage"? Ohhhhhh........joining one man and one woman together as legally recognized husband and wife.

Nope. Your definition doesn't even encompass all the marriages in the US, much less the rest of the world.

Pietro Armando wrote:

Exactly how we're they applied "equally"? How does one apply a law equally to a person of mixed ethnicity/race?

The same way you keep asserting the marriage laws of states that don't allow same sex marriages apply the law equally to men and women. The laws specify a restriction and it is applied equally to all who seek to marry under the law. That's not to say the restriction is constitutional, however.

Pietro Armando wrote:

It must drive you crazy knowing there are self described gay men, and lesbians, who actually choose to marry someone of the opposite sex, and even engage in coitus! And what can coitus result in? Conception!

On the contrary, whether and how other decide to exercise their constitutional right to marry has no effect on me.

Pietro Armando wrote:

If ya can't, just say so.

I already did in previous posts. it's not my fault you didm read them.

Pietro Armando wrote:

Is it possible, that at least for some, "innate sexual orientation", is not set in stone, not black or white?

<quoted text>Yes. From In re Marriage Cases, 43 Cal.4th 757:"As discussed below, upon review of the numerous California decisions that have examined the underlying bases and significance of the constitutional right to marry (and that illuminate why this right has been recognized as one of the basic, inalienable civil rights guaranteed to an individual by the California Constitution), we conclude that, under this state's Constitution, the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual's liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process. These core substantive rights include, most fundamentally, the opportunity of an individual to establish—with the person with whom the individual has chosen to share his or her life—an officially recognized and protected family possessing mutual rights and responsibilities and entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage. As past cases establish, the substantive right of two adults who share a loving relationship to join together to establish an officially recognized family of their own—and, if the couple chooses, to raise children within that family—constitutes a vitally important attribute of the fundamental interest in liberty and personal autonomy that the California Constitution secures to all persons for the benefit of both the individual and society.Furthermore, in contrast to earlier times, our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation, and, more generally, that an individual's sexual orientation—like a person's race or gender—does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights. We therefore conclude that in view of the substance and significance of the fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship, the California Constitution properly must be interpreted to guarantee this basic civil right to all Californians, whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples."<quoted text>Possibly.<quoted text>Nope. Your definition doesn't even encompass all the marriages in the US, much less the rest of the world.<quoted text>The same way you keep asserting the marriage laws of states that don't allow same sex marriages apply the law equally to men and women. The laws specify a restriction and it is applied equally to all who seek to marry under the law. That's not to say the restriction is constitutional, however.<quoted text>On the contrary, whether and how other decide to exercise their constitutional right to marry has no effect on me.<quoted text>I already did in previous posts. it's not my fault you didm read them.<quoted text>They're called bisexuals.

Darn, ya gave him the information.......I wanted to see if he could actually look it up for himself.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.